- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:04:13 -0500 > From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice(a)math.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > Reread what you quoted below, and you will see that I don't want to > debate over wether or not in a frontal clash between USSR and Japan the > japanese army wins or not. I will grant you they win the first > battle. The same way the germans won for a while... And even admittedly > if you destroy the organised forces from your enemy, it doesn't mean you > are done. You are only if you manage to get the population on your > side. Dimitri makes a very good point in his post, saying that the > germans fucked up in the west, as they could have taken great advantage > from being seen as liberators. As for "Moscow fall, Stalin fall", > remember Napoleon ? Napolean never took Moscow, he was stopped - just like Hitler - at the gates. The closest either French or German forces got was to look at the spires of the Kremlin. Beyond that similarity there are a wide range of differences between the situation. The fact remains that had Stalin *not* been able to withdraw troops from the Chinese border he would not have been able to keep Stalingrad or Moscow. Further, the *only* reason that Stalin could afford to do that was because Sorge indicated that the Japanese were interested in other goals at the time. Oh, regarding Napolean, the reason that he couldn't take Moscow was because troops, called Cossacks, were moved from the east to the west. > > Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would > > have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that > > he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's > > Yeah, he was stupid. That's my point ;-) Hitler may have been a lot of things, stupid was not one of them. > Ultimatly this cost them the game. Not enough men. Had the situation > last a little longer, japanese occupation forces in China would have > faced some serious problems (they were already, actually). Such as? The situation in China at the time was that a variety of warlords were spending more time fighting each other than the Japanese. China at that time was not a cohesive entity. The reason that Japan lost WWII was that at no point did they have strategic supplies of oil for longer than 5-9 months *and* the US waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific destroying what merchant marine the Japanese had so they could not take advantage of the oil refineries in such nifty places as Palembang, Sumatra (whose taking in Feb. 1942 was the first use of Japanese paratroops, all 700 were wiped out). It was not because they didn't have the men. > Well, in 34 it wasn't yet the case: when there were serious rumors that > Hitler might be tempted to invade Austria, Mussolini moved troops close > to his autrian border. He was a close friend of the austrian prime > minister of the time (later to be killed...). How Mussolini changed his > mind is a mix of his internal situation in Italy, and his rejection by > the rest of Europe... In 1934 Mussolini invaded Abyssinia all on his own, Hitler took the opportunity to march into the Rhineland while the rest of the world stood aghast at the use of modern weapons against stone-age tribesmen. The next thing Mussolini did was send troops to help Franco, troops which fought right along side Germans troops. On Nov. 30, 1938 Ciano made a comment in the Fascist Chamber about 'natural aspiration' and the members stood yelling "Corsica, Tunis, Nice!". The talk of taking Nice obviously did nothing to settle the French's worries. In July, 1938 5 billion lire was asigned to modernize the Italian forces. The Abyssinian campaign cost 13 billion lire and tied up 300,000 Italian troops. The help in Spain cost hardware and involved another 50,000 troops who were still there. When the Spanish Civil War ended in 1939 he invaded Albania, which was an Italian protectorate. By this time Italy as allied strongly to Germany in the minds of just about everyone. Around 12 August, 1939 after Ciano discovered the intended invasion of Poland and passed this to Mussolini did there become a measure of doubt in Mussolini's mind that perhaps he had picked the wrong allies. > I think you are the one playing games, not me. Once again, I don't > disagree with you on the fact that the US made the right decision > anyway. But had they waited until Hitler was knocking on their door it > wouldn't probably have changed the issue by much. (I would be a native > german-speaker, perhaps...) If the US had waited until Hitler began dropping bombs on New York and firing V2's from submarines 20 miles off the coast while at the same time Japan was doing the same sorts of things, with a nice base at Pearl Harbor, *and* you claim the US could have stood the test then I can only say you are confused at best. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Seeing Both Sides
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Concord is clearly proof that Britain didn't understand that they >couldn't control America anymore and acted on that misinformation. It >was *their* problem, as the revolution bore out. Britain would probably have been capable of controlling America had France not intervened. France provided desperately needed powder and money to the revolutionaries. During the siege of Boston it was seriously proposed that bow and arrows be employed due to powder shortages. Spears were actually prepared for use! France also provided officers to staff the poorly trained and organized American armies, troops, and even a navy. The final victory at Yorktown was largely a French operation, for example. Here is Richard N. Rosenfeld's take on it from "American Aurora": Page 418: "There are approximately 32,000 French soldiers and sailors at Yorktown, four to six times the number of George Washington's army, and more than twice, if not three times, the number of all Americans at Yorktown, including militia. Indeed, there are many more French soldiers on the ground than American Continentals. The entire blockading force at sea is French." Page 419: "Of French and American forces which encircle Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown, the naval part of this circle consists strictly of French warships (more than thirty) and sailors (nineteen thousand!). America has no warships in this naval blockade." Page 419: "Orchestrating the siege at Yorktown is strictly a matter for the French. Washington has no experience in siege warfare. The French perfected the art. Rochambeau has taken part in fourteen sieges! General Lebigne, the Chevalier Du Portail, and other French officers and engineers take charge of siege operations." Page 420: "Two French soldiers die for each American death at Yorktown. Two French soldiers are wounded for each American wound at Yorktown. French casualties exceed 250." Page 421: "British General Charles O'Hara, acting on behalf of General Charles Cornwallis (who has pleaded illness), attempts to surrender Cornwallis' (sic) sword to French Commander in Chief General the Comte de Rochambeau, but Rochambeau magnanimously refuses to accept the surrender weapon and directs the British general to George Washington." Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHnGVJaWtjSmRH/5AQH3hgf+LcvSRiufKxypdjVEXn5vbMa1Ob2IUfyY qSklLDEdYlRP2iOtl1dsLT/XIXaabo6F8lkAVqBXnXffiLd5ewzWs51jI9HEeoMa gtlfgUS49fxBeLeaojen1VVLvr4zkVWjATmspNk1SRu2l6Arc/3KgwPeYgX0A9+V 5fqguVO/frV4BH6wqnVyuKosO2DXoP8njVfjwuTybwO1yO1BQ4+EtgW1m6jkXIwE RjSZsGS7+KK2Ywu9eGWdC2Y0sOPG6k9zy/4zmm+xlttocYx75ixwCwYNWJihNfPe /uT8emxWak0aPAAynug6ZGPU3CXdRZ3JsWKB6a2s3kVgGiIQ2oLxrg== =ZZoe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Iraq and computers
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Michael Wilson wrote that Reuters wrote: >WASHINGTON (November 23, 1997 02:35 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - >To conceal its deadliest arms from U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraq has >increasingly turned to U.S.-made computers sold in Baghdad since the >end of the 1991 Gulf War in violation of international sanctions, the >Los Angeles Times reported in its Sunday editions. > >Quoting U.S. officials and U.N. diplomats, the newspaper said that >Iraqi scientists and defense officials are using Western-made >computers to transfer data from bulky papers to small disks that can >be easily dispersed, making the information difficult for inspectors >to track. This is an interesting development because it also makes it hard for the Iraqi government to track what is going on, too. The government of Iraq has been aware of the dangers of computers for many years. At one time they were tightly controlled. Even typewriters were controlled. The government had writing samples of each one. Now, apparently, this policy is loosening. This suggests that U.S. policy of the last 8 years has managed to achieve what Saddam Hussein could not - it has made the Hussein regime a genuinely popular government. Still, it can't be universally popular. How many cypherpunks live in Iraq? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHoZopaWtjSmRH/5AQG9ogf9FFdBqiwOk3gekieqIg3+Yr5pdaYM5/4v lIHPYuPM5IMpe8Wc1DX1FzG4YUC4hGMtj4w6eU8KNc3bSESVDPcU2boUVJtDjQp2 jUh13tKM/s6kwjQXKjH9j5G0cr1fsMrP9v7T4qNSEUA9VV8xI/Zqq7t/jLxncjSC jodmc/IcO5gPwxuvHLw8FR0/qpxuNJXSNWqzBptbT8vHldyPLg1E6rCOdWdNsDdN kvzyW9EXLbNWweK3ezFaWniytRbxE99poJN3iNcdsxjg94otIEpS3oCAJjuCmyrf HYRfv/Z5yzqpY5doAtdfy5RkvREwrINvCtLn+hgcBxQ0YTEDO8zUUg== =jyt7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

where to download pgp 5.0 for Linux?
by goddesshera＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

where to download pgp 5.0 for Linux? (for free) This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to <goddesshera(a)juno.com>.

1 0

http:--www.cnn.com-US-9711-24-cyberhate.web.site.ap-
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Barnes and Noble Main banner Click here to see the Q phone from QUALCOMM, the highest evolution of digital. rule CIVIL RIGHTS WEB SITE TO FIGHT CYBERHATE CivilRights.org November 24, 1997 Web posted at: 6:01 p.m. EST (2301 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Responding to President Clinton's call to fight hate crime, the nation's largest civil rights coalition and a regional Bell telephone company have created a Web site designed to combat Internet hate speech. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said Monday the site -- www.civilrights.org -- was developed and will be maintained for two years with a $100,000 contribution from Bell Atlantic. Clinton issued a call two weeks ago at a White House Conference on Hate Crimes to find ways to fight the problem. "You are providing an antidote to cyberhate," he told the civil rights coalition in a letter read by Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater at a news conference on Monday. Wade Henderson, LCCR executive director, said the idea to create a Web site was triggered by a proliferation of Internet hate speech by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and White Aryan Resistance. Bell Atlantic chairman Ray Smith cited a study by the Anti-Defamation League showing the number of hate sites on the Internet has doubled to 250 in the past year. He called the new site "an antidote for poison." The idea is to "counter the frightening espousal of hatred and violence against Americans because of their race, gender, religious or sexual orientation," he said. Henderson said hate groups have become more sophisticated in communicating their doctrines and recruiting. "Instead of the street, they recruit on the net," he explained. There is also concern for the First Amendment protection of free speech, Henderson said. "This Web site will respond to hate with information and competing ideas without seeking to restrict Internet speech." In addition to providing information on hate crimes around the country, the site will explain various strategies to address those crimes and offer materials for young people, parents and teachers to encourage diversity. Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. rule Related stories: * AllPolitics: Clinton denounces Denver's racial violence - November 22, 1997 * Denver seeks answers in apparent wave of hate crime - November 21, 1997 * Hate case raises Internet free speech issues - November 9, 1997 Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * CivilRights.org - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights * Bell Atlantic * American Communication Association WWW Archives + Freedom of Speech + Human Rights Issues External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] Click here to see the Q phone from QUALCOMM, the highest evolution of digital. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

launch memes
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Cypherpunks reject politics. They know that it is unnecessary, counter-productive, and wrong. Terrorism and violent confrontation are the ultimate form of politics. ------- Cypherpunks don't fixate on their enemies, real or imagined. Reactionary Christians do. Reactionary Muslims do. Wacko leftists do. Wacko rightists do. In fact, probably every penny-ante cult and fringe political movement does. Perhaps it makes it easier to avoid doubt by thinking and feeling about your enemies (real or imagined) in order to keep from thinking about your self. But cypherpunks don't fixate on their enemies. They have more important things to worry about. ------- Cypherpunks think strategically. Cypherpunks act strategically. -------

2 1

1 Million for $1.60
by ipitco＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

" RATED THE # 1 OPPORTUNITY ON THE INTERNET ! " Could you use 52 MILLION responsive email addresses? Get a list of one million fresh, clean addresses each week for one year. JUST $1.60 PER MILLION! Best price on the net! Includes a Brand NEW Business Opportunity! * You receive a $30.00 commission for each signup with your ID# * * $10 off any of your direct distributors's sales * * FREE web page with secure order form * * Just promote it. We do all the selling ! * >>>>ENROLL NOW!!! <<<< Your must use ID # 599 to Enroll <<< http://www.edgetone.com/industry2/resellers/resell599.html

1 0

Re: Seeing Both Sides
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Concord is clearly proof that Britain didn't understand that they >couldn't control America anymore and acted on that misinformation. It >was *their* problem, as the revolution bore out. Britain would probably have been capable of controlling America had France not intervened. France provided desperately needed powder and money to the revolutionaries. During the siege of Boston it was seriously proposed that bow and arrows be employed due to powder shortages. Spears were actually prepared for use! France also provided officers to staff the poorly trained and organized American armies, troops, and even a navy. The final victory at Yorktown was largely a French operation, for example. Here is Richard N. Rosenfeld's take on it from "American Aurora": Page 418: "There are approximately 32,000 French soldiers and sailors at Yorktown, four to six times the number of George Washington's army, and more than twice, if not three times, the number of all Americans at Yorktown, including militia. Indeed, there are many more French soldiers on the ground than American Continentals. The entire blockading force at sea is French." Page 419: "Of French and American forces which encircle Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown, the naval part of this circle consists strictly of French warships (more than thirty) and sailors (nineteen thousand!). America has no warships in this naval blockade." Page 419: "Orchestrating the siege at Yorktown is strictly a matter for the French. Washington has no experience in siege warfare. The French perfected the art. Rochambeau has taken part in fourteen sieges! General Lebigne, the Chevalier Du Portail, and other French officers and engineers take charge of siege operations." Page 420: "Two French soldiers die for each American death at Yorktown. Two French soldiers are wounded for each American wound at Yorktown. French casualties exceed 250." Page 421: "British General Charles O'Hara, acting on behalf of General Charles Cornwallis (who has pleaded illness), attempts to surrender Cornwallis' (sic) sword to French Commander in Chief General the Comte de Rochambeau, but Rochambeau magnanimously refuses to accept the surrender weapon and directs the British general to George Washington." Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHnGVJaWtjSmRH/5AQH3hgf+LcvSRiufKxypdjVEXn5vbMa1Ob2IUfyY qSklLDEdYlRP2iOtl1dsLT/XIXaabo6F8lkAVqBXnXffiLd5ewzWs51jI9HEeoMa gtlfgUS49fxBeLeaojen1VVLvr4zkVWjATmspNk1SRu2l6Arc/3KgwPeYgX0A9+V 5fqguVO/frV4BH6wqnVyuKosO2DXoP8njVfjwuTybwO1yO1BQ4+EtgW1m6jkXIwE RjSZsGS7+KK2Ywu9eGWdC2Y0sOPG6k9zy/4zmm+xlttocYx75ixwCwYNWJihNfPe /uT8emxWak0aPAAynug6ZGPU3CXdRZ3JsWKB6a2s3kVgGiIQ2oLxrg== =ZZoe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0